Measuring abortion in claims data: What is the state of the science?

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Contraception Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110750
Alice Abernathy , Maria I. Rodriguez , Jonas J. Swartz
{"title":"Measuring abortion in claims data: What is the state of the science?","authors":"Alice Abernathy ,&nbsp;Maria I. Rodriguez ,&nbsp;Jonas J. Swartz","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Health care insurance claims are an increasingly common data source for health outcomes research. While researchers have successfully used several claims data sources for many obstetric and gynecologic questions, the use of claims data for abortion and contraception research poses a number of challenges. In this update on the state of the science in identifying abortion in claims data, we review claims data generally, describe commonly used claims data sources, and detail specific reasons why abortion may be underestimated in claims even when employing best practices. We provide examples of successful approaches for identifying abortion in claims and importantly, spell out limitations when making comparisons across site of care, states, and policy contexts. As increased attention is turned to identifying abortion across diverse settings, it is critical best practices are applied so that the most appropriate inferences regarding abortion incidence across contexts over time are drawn.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":"142 ","pages":"Article 110750"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782424004645","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health care insurance claims are an increasingly common data source for health outcomes research. While researchers have successfully used several claims data sources for many obstetric and gynecologic questions, the use of claims data for abortion and contraception research poses a number of challenges. In this update on the state of the science in identifying abortion in claims data, we review claims data generally, describe commonly used claims data sources, and detail specific reasons why abortion may be underestimated in claims even when employing best practices. We provide examples of successful approaches for identifying abortion in claims and importantly, spell out limitations when making comparisons across site of care, states, and policy contexts. As increased attention is turned to identifying abortion across diverse settings, it is critical best practices are applied so that the most appropriate inferences regarding abortion incidence across contexts over time are drawn.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从报销数据中衡量堕胎情况:科学现状如何?
医疗保险理赔是健康结果研究中越来越常见的数据来源。虽然研究人员已经成功地将多个理赔数据源用于许多妇产科问题的研究,但将理赔数据用于流产和避孕研究却面临着许多挑战。在这份关于在索赔数据中识别人工流产的科学现状的最新报告中,我们对索赔数据进行了总体回顾,介绍了常用的索赔数据来源,并详细说明了即使采用最佳实践,人工流产也可能在索赔数据中被低估的具体原因。我们举例说明了在索赔中识别堕胎的成功方法,重要的是阐明了在对不同医疗机构、州和政策背景进行比较时的局限性。随着人们越来越关注在不同环境中识别人工流产,采用最佳实践至关重要,这样才能就不同环境下的人工流产发生率得出最合适的推论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contraception
Contraception 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
17.20%
发文量
211
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Contraception has an open access mirror journal Contraception: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The journal Contraception wishes to advance reproductive health through the rapid publication of the best and most interesting new scholarship regarding contraception and related fields such as abortion. The journal welcomes manuscripts from investigators working in the laboratory, clinical and social sciences, as well as public health and health professions education.
期刊最新文献
Use of period- or fertility-tracking technologies pre- and post-Dobbs Mapping ethical concerns in algorithm-driven period and fertility tracking technologies Implementing digital sexual and reproductive health tools: Challenges and recommendations post-Dobbs Navigating FemTech app regulation in Switzerland: Challenges and opportunities from a public health perspective Safeguarding autonomy: Examining the complexities and implications of under-regulated period-tracking apps and paired devices in a post-Roe landscape
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1